It’s hard not to feel a sense of déjà vu when listening to the debate about skills shortages. We need more young engineers. But not enough are coming through. So companies have to recruit from aboard. Anyone who pays the barest attention to such matters will have surely heard it all before.
Professor John Perkins, one of the government’s top scientific advisers, knows he is playing to a jaded audience when discussing these issues. Perkins produced an exhaustive review of engineering skills towards the end of last year, putting forward 22 recommendations of ways to address shortfalls and to inspire more young people to become engineers. He thinks good progress has been made on each of the suggestions since then. But he understands that others might be more cynical about what has been achieved. “It’s absolutely the case that we’ve heard this before,” he says. “I can find 19th-century publications talking about the problem of technical education. None of this is new. What is different is that this government has an industrial strategy, and it recognises the importance of skills in delivering that agenda. We are better organised than in the past.”
Much of his report’s recommendations require the government to work in tandem with industry and the professional institutions to deliver set outcomes. This hasn’t always been the case – many previous skills reviews have demanded a prescriptive, top-down approach. Perkins believes the spirit of collaboration will make a difference this time around.
“There’s a recognition that we need to take a much more coherent approach to the whole issue of skills provision,” he says. “We’ve always managed to bumble along. There’s been no shortage of worthy activity over the years, but it hasn’t scaled well. Now the profession is getting its act together in ways it has struggled to do in the past. What we are talking about here is a much more strategic commitment to increasing the number of engineers. And I’m optimistic this will make a difference.”
Let’s talk specifics. Too often in the past the skills debate has been driven by the setting of worthy but woolly intangibles – vague assertions to ‘make things better’. Perkins wanted his report to be different: he wanted to come up with solid, sensible proposals that could be seen to be deliverable.
So, let’s take some of these on a case-by-case basis. One of the recommendations called for a review of funding arrangements to ensure that higher-education institutions could continue to provide high-quality engineering teaching. This money has been found, with caveats, with an announcement that the government will invest £200 million in teaching facilities for engineering and science subjects at universities. The capital investment will only be forthcoming, though, if it can be matched with private money.
On promoting the profession, the Perkins report urged the engineering community, including all the institutions, to join in partnership with Tomorrow’s Engineers, a programme of events to make the subject accessible for students, teachers and parents. The aim is to agree effective core messages and to cooperate to disseminate them to young people.
Tomorrow’s Engineers already has an excellent website, and well-publicised national events that take place during a specific Tomorrow’s Engineers Week, but there are fears that too many similar promotional activities cloud the message.
According to Paul Jackson, chief executive of Engineering UK, the organisation behind Tomorrow’s Engineers, conversations that have already taken place within the engineering community are expected to result in more cohesive, joined-up thinking in this area, resulting in fewer individual initiatives. Jackson says that Tomorrow’s Engineers Week, which takes place annually in November, has become a “solid flag in the calendar”, attracting a lot of political support from MPs who are keen to see activities within their constituencies. “It has taken off,” he says.
Perkins is pleased that this activity is taking place. He feels that in the past the various institutions have spent too much time promoting their own, individual initiatives. “There have been advances in this area from the institutions – including the IMechE,” says Perkins. “There’s an appetite to work together where it makes sense to do so as the community can achieve a lot more that way than by working on its own.”
One day, he says, combined activities might even result in a coordinated television advertising campaign aimed at boosting the number of recruits. It has worked successfully in the past for the armed forces, so why not for engineers? “A properly targeted campaign of that sort could make a difference,” he says.
Indeed, Engineering UK has confirmed that it is working with the Royal Academy of Engineering to look at how a high-profile campaign might be funded and what its message might be. The findings will be revealed in the next few months.
Another recommendation was that the government should provide seed funding to roll out nationwide an employer engagement programme to help academia to connect with engineering companies. The aim is to get employers visiting more than a select handful of research-intensive universities and out to the rest of the 180 engineering departments.
Some employers already have local links with particular engineering departments. And there are firms that pick particular universities outside the elite Russell Group because of their specialised courses or the skills attributes of their graduates. But the long-term aim is to expand the number of such relationships.
With this in mind, Engineering UK has received £250,000 from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). Jackson says: “We have placed a contract with Boston Consulting to gauge what can be done to make employer engagement easier within academia, and to work out how it might feed into careers advice. The work will also look at how data can be shared, so that we have a better idea of what companies have been into what places.”
Another recommendation called on the government to provide specific, targeted support for the Daphne Jackson Trust to extend and develop its fellowship model to support people returning to professional engineering after a career break. A relatively small amount of money has been forthcoming, in the form of a £40,000 grant from BIS, to undertake a feasibility study to explore how such a scheme for female engineers might work.
Dr Katie Perry, chief executive of the trust, says: “We are in the early stages of the feasibility study to explore ways to encourage women engineers to return to their careers following a break. There is a pool of talented women who would be happy to return to engineering roles if the right support and flexibility were available.
“We intend to identify what employers and potential returners see as the barriers that prevent women returning, and put forward recommendations for a scheme that will overcome them.”
Perkins is pleased that this funding has been made available. But with the percentage of female engineers stuck at 7%, he thinks the drive to attract more women into the profession needs impetus: “We haven’t made much progress on this. We are shooting ourselves in the foot.”
He says the fact that other countries have a far higher percentage of female engineers – in some the figure stands at up to 30% – shows that progress can be made. “We are the worst in Europe,” he adds. “The statistics show that it’s not impossible – it’s just somehow in this country we have not managed to crack this problem. Given the amount of effort to address this problem, we have not made enough progress.”
But, looking ahead, he isn’t too pessimistic about this issue. Perkins believes that there are still plenty of bright female role models emerging, many of whom are carrying out sterling work to promote the opportunities for women in the profession. And he says that there is strong political support for the issue: “There was a roundtable discussion recently at Number 10 on this issue: it is a real focus. There is a lot of good work going on but maybe we need to find a more strategic approach.”
These are just a few of the 22 recommendations in his report. Perkins insists that progress has been made across the board. “There’s been extra money for capital investment for teaching facilities in universities and innovative funding arrangements for vocational education and employer engagement,” he says. “Things are happening. The recommendations in the report are being acted on, at a differing pace.”
Engineering UK supports these words, saying that Perkins did the profession a huge favour by producing a report that presented the skills challenge in a crisp and succinct manner. “A lot of what he said wasn’t new,” says Paul Jackson. “But Perkins brought it all together really well. The engineering community remains really behind the recommendations. It is up to all of us now to ensure that government is held to account to ensure that progress made so far continues.”
Perkins report leads to direct action to bolster skills
Practical lessons: Teaching in schools needs to be relevant to industry
Many of John Perkins’ recommendations are being pushed forward by the Royal Academy of Engineering. Here are some of the actions that have taken place so far.
Recommendation:
The government should ensure that the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Physics are fully engaged during consultation on revisions to A-level physics to ensure that the new qualification will provide a sound foundation to progress to degree study in engineering.
Response: The academy and institute have been in discussion with the Department for Education about the A-level reforms. Both organisations have very strongly opposed the proposal from the qualifications regulator Ofqual that non-examined assessment (practical work) should be separated from the final grade. The two organisations have yet to get a response from the department or Ofqual about the reforms.
Recommendation:
The engineering community should provide continuing professional development for teachers, giving them experience of working in industry to put their academic teaching in practical context and enabling them to inspire and inform their students about engineering.
Response: The royal academy has established a task group bringing together employers, schools and engineering institutions to look at how to improve industry experience for teachers and work experience for students. The task group is chaired by Steve Holliday FREng of National Grid. The academy says it doesn’t want to create new initiatives but to look at best practice and see how it can roll that out more effectively.
Recommendation:
The engineering community should work with the government to develop and promote new level 2 and 3 qualifications that will create high-quality vocational routes for 16- to 19-year-olds to enter engineering careers.
Response: The academy has developed, with awarding bodies, new level 2 qualifications in engineering. These replace the Engineering Diploma. So there are now three new qualifications, each worth one GCSE, all taking their content from the former diploma qualifications. These are being rolled out by Pearson/Edexcel and awarding body OCR. The royal academy has also been working over the past year with the profession through the National Committee for 14-19 Engineering Education to develop a new A-level in engineering, but admits that it is still some way off this becoming a reality.
Recommendation:
Engineering employers should encourage staff to share their skills and knowledge, for example by participating in the Education and Training Foundation’s Teach Too scheme.
Response: A task group, led by Carol Burke, managing director of Unipart Manufacturing, has been established to bring together employers, further-education colleges and engineering institutions to look at how to get more practising engineers going into colleges to teach leading-edge skills. The findings will be delivered by the Education and Training Foundation.
Recommendation:
The profession should develop concerted engagement with university students, including work placements to raise the profile of engineering careers and ensure that students on every campus are aware of the full range of diverse opportunities with employers, large and small.
Response: The royal academy is establishing a task group, chaired by Professor Dame Julia King, vice-chancellor of Aston University. The group will include representatives of higher-education institutions, employers and professional institutions. The aim is to see how the visibility of engineering employers can be raised on campus.
The engineer at the heart of government
Professor John Perkins has enjoyed a long career in academia, having headed the engineering faculties at Imperial College London and the University of Manchester, along with being provost at Masdar Institute of Science and Technology in Abu Dhabi. These sound credentials made him the ideal candidate for the role of chief scientific adviser to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), which he carries out three days a week in combination with his academic work.
Perkins’ role is to provide civil servants and politicians with sound, appropriately-sourced scientific and engineering advice to enable them to make informed policy decisions. Given that BIS activities cut across a wide range of areas, Perkins’ role has proved incredibly diverse.
“The spectrum of relevant science and engineering is arguably the broadest of any government department,” he says. “I have looked at more areas here than in my entire academic career. These have included cyber security, energy issues, the use of animals in testing, the way Europe approaches regulation – a whole range of things. It’s a fun job. You don’t know what the issue of the day might be.”
Perkins is two thirds of the way through a three-year tenure at BIS. He says he has been impressed by the level of engineering knowledge within the department, debunking suggestions that civil servants have little technical awareness. There are some bright people in BIS and he suspects that it’s the same in other departments.
He says: “The department’s engagement with key external stakeholders in industry and the professions is very good indeed. There are a significant number in the department who recognise the importance of engineering.”
He doesn’t think that his title – chief scientific adviser – suggests any bias in favour of science over engineering. It’s semantics, he says. “The word ‘science’ in Whitehall is used in the broadest sense. I don’t get too excited about the title.”
“At BIS, it’s important that the chief scientific adviser is an engineer because a lot of the work is about the application of science to help build industry. It’s helpful that I am an engineer, whereas the Department of Health clearly needs someone with a medical background.”
So what is he advising on at the moment? Fracking is one area of activity, and Perkins has sat down with various peers such as David MacKay, his counterpart at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, to understand the issues at hand. From a personal point of view, he says, as long as the regulatory framework is watertight, fracking is an activity that he would be minded to support. “The technology has been used by industry for some time,” he says. “It’s not as though this is some form of wonderful new science fiction that hasn’t been tested before. But we need to ensure that we have in place the right regulatory system to ensure it is done in a safe and environmentally friendly way. All the statements from ministers that I have seen are consistent with that.”
Looking forward, Perkins has a full in-tray. As well as advising on any engineering-related issues that may crop up, he is also involved with a longer-term project looking at how civil servants inside BIS might be better provided with technical advice. BIS wants to forge stronger links with several partner organisations, such as the Met Office, the Intellectual Property Office and the National Physical Laboratory.
“There are a whole range of partners who we call upon for advice and I’m keen to make that process easier,” he says. “There are tools such as IT and social media that might allow us to exploit this more aggressively. There is an ambition to see science mainstreamed within the department, so that it becomes a much more visible aspect of its work.”